coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Obninsk.
5.  The applicant brought a civil action, seeking an increase of the monthly rate of the disability compensation he was entitled to receive.
6.  On 6 March 2000 the Obninsk District Court of the Kaluga Region awarded the applicant 244,745.52 Russian roubles (RUR) in arrears for the period from 1 December 1998 to 1 April 2000 and increased the monthly payments to RUR 18,211.72 effective from 1 April 2000. On 1 June 2000 the Kaluga Regional Court upheld the judgment.
7.  On 4 August 2000 the bailiffs' office opened the enforcement proceedings.
8.  On 25 September 2000 the bailiffs' office forwarded the writs of execution to the Obninsk Division of the Federal Treasury and closed the enforcement proceedings.
9.  On 7 December 2001 the Obninsk Town Court clarified that the judgment in the applicant's favour was to be executed by the Obninsk Division of the Federal Treasury.
10.  In June 2002 the applicant received the entire amount of the arrears due under the judgment of 6 March 2000, that is RUR 244,745.52.
11.  On 1 November 2002 the applicant received RUR 159,697.62 in arrears resulting from the State's failure to pay, in 2000, the disability compensation in the amount determined by the judgment of 6 March 2000.
12.  On 2 April 2003 the applicant received RUR 211,820.64 in arrears resulting from the State's failure to pay, in 2001, the disability compensation in the amount determined by the judgment of 6 March 2000.
13.  On 9 April 2003 the applicant received RUR 211,820.64 in arrears resulting from the State's failure to pay, in 2002, the disability compensation in the amount determined by the judgment of 6 March 2000.
14.  In October 2003 the applicant started to receive the monthly disability payments in the amount determined by the judgment of 6 March 2000.
4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Krasnoperekopsk, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.
5.  On 27 February 1997 the Krasnoperekopsk Court (Красноперекопський міський суд) ordered the State-owned Construction Company “Budivelne Upravlinnya-50” (the “Company,” Будівельне управління №50 Тресту „Перекопхімбуд” ТБО „Кримбуд” Корпорації „Укрбуд”) to pay the applicant UAH 157,197[1] in damages for a breach of their contract for construction of a house. This judgment became final and the enforcement writ was transferred to the Bailiffs' Service for enforcement.
6.  On 22 April 1997 the Bailiffs' Service attached the Company's assets to secure the execution of the judgment.
7.  On 22 July 1997 and 13 July 1998 the applicant received the total of UAH 14,848.[2]
8.  On 6 August 1997 the State Property Fund of the Crimea (the “Fund,” Фонд державного майна Автономної республіки Крим) leased the Company's production unit to a third party.
9.  On 28 May 1998 the Ministry of Building and Investments of the Crimea (Міністерство будівництва і інвестицій Автономної республіки Крим) ordered liquidation of the Company and established a liquidation commission for this purpose.
10.  On 22 October 1998 the liquidation commission adopted the Company's liquidation balance, which certified that the Company lacked assets to pay its outstanding debt to the applicant.
11.  In January 2001 the applicant challenged the Fund's decision to lease the Company's production unit, alleging that it had infringed his rights as a creditor and the attachment order of 22 April 1997.
12.  On 2 April 2001 the Kyivsky District Court of Simferopol (the “Kyivsky Court;” Київський районний суд м. Сімферополя) found for the applicant and declared the Fund's decision null and void. On 22 June 2001 the court issued an additional judgment, ordering the Fund to sell a part of the Company's property of a value sufficient to repay the applicant UAH 267,389.56[3] of the judgment debt adjusted to inflation. The Fund appealed, and on 24 October 2001 the Court of Appeal of the Crimea (Апеляційний суд Автономної Республіки Крим) upheld these judgments.
13.  On 16 May 2002 the Supreme Court overruled the judgments of 2 April, 22 June and 24 October 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
14.  On 21 January 2003 the Kyivsky Court left the applicant's claims without consideration due to his repetitive failures to appear for the hearings. According to the applicant, he had not been duly summoned for the hearings in question. He did not appeal against the court decision of 21 January 2003.
15.  The Krasnoperekopsk Court's judgment of 27 February 1997 remains largely unenforced to the present day.
4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in the town of Dniprodzerzhynsk.
5.  In 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Labour Disputes Commission against the Agrofos State Enterprise (the “ASE”), seeking recovery of salary arrears and compensation. By decision of 26 February 2002, the Labour Disputes Commission allowed the applicant's claims and ordered the ASE to pay him UAH 3,429.09[1] in salary arrears and other payments.
6.  On 18 July 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Bagaliyskyy District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk against the ASE, seeking recovery of salary arrears and compensation. On 23 August 2002 the court left the applicant's claim without consideration for failure to attend the hearings, of which the applicant had been informed in advance. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.
7.  On 5 September 2002 the applicant lodged similar claims with the same court against the ASE. By decision of 26 September 2002, the court awarded the applicant UAH 3,842.86[2] in salary arrears and other payments.
8.  On 10 April and 1 October 2002 the Bagaliyskyy District Bailiffs' Service of Dniprodzerzhynsk instituted enforcement proceedings concerning the decisions of 26 February and 26 September 2002, respectively.
9.  On 5 August 2002 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine liquidated the ASE and established the Joint Stock Company “Dniprovskyy Zavod Mineralnyh Dobryv” (the “DZMD”) – in which the State held 40% of the share capital – as the ASE's successor.
10.  On 24 March 2003 the applicant lodged with the Bagaliyskyy District Court a criminal law complaint against the Bailiffs' Service. By letter of 2 April 2003, the President of the court denied jurisdiction to consider the applicant's complaint.
11.  On 2 February 2004 the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the decisions in his favour had not been executed due to the substantial number of enforcement proceedings against the DZMD and that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor company had been blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 29 November 2001. The Bailiffs' Service further informed the applicant that the DZMD's property has been in a tax lien since 1 March 2004.
12.  On 7 April 2004 the Commercial Court of the Dnipropetrovsk Region commenced bankruptcy proceedings against the DZMD. According to the Government, these proceedings are still pending.
13.  On 29 April 2004 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Bagaliyskyy District Court against the Bailiffs' Service, seeking compensation for failure to enforce the decisions in his favour. On 29 November 2004 the court rejected the applicant's claim. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.
14.  On 2 September 2004 the decision of 26 February 2002 was enforced in full. The decision of 26 September 2002 remains to a large extent (UAH 1,059[3]) unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and resides in the town of Zhovti Vody, Dnipropetrovsk region, Ukraine.
5.  On an unspecified date, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Zhovtovodskyy Town Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region against his employer, a State-owned company, the Zhovti Vody Building Department (Жовтоводське управління будівництва), in order to receive salary arrears and other payments.
6.  On 26 January 2001 the court found for the applicant and awarded him 9,001.66[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) (Рішення Жовтоводського міського суду).
7.  On 9 February 2001 the Zhovti Vody Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Жовтоводського міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings.
8.  On an unspecified date, the applicant instituted new proceedings in the same court against the same enterprise for further payments and compensation.
9.  On 19 February 2003 the court found for the applicant and awarded him UAH 1,483.83[2].
10.  The applicant received UAH 650, but the rest of the awards remain unpaid.
11.  By letters of 3 October and 27 November 2003, the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings had been stayed because of the bankruptcy proceedings initiated against the debtor by a decision of 27 December 2001 of the Commercial Court of the Dnipropetrovsk Region. The Bailiffs' Service also stated that, according to the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on 26 December 2001 a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital had been introduced.
12.  By letter of 6 February 2004, the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings had been resumed and that the judgments in the applicant's favour would be enforced gradually in accordance with his place in the list of creditors. However, according to the applicant, the judgments remain unenforced.
13.  By the decree of 5 October 2004 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine liquidated the debtor company.
4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Gliwice, Poland.
5.  The applicant was the owner of a company in Gdańsk (Agencja Rozwoju Przedsiębiorczości i Inwestycji w Gdańsku). On 8 April 1999 he was arrested on suspicion of fraud. On 10 April 1999 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered his detention on remand.
6.  On 21 May 1999 the applicant began serving a 3 years and 10 months' prison sentence, which resulted from another conviction.
7.  On 9 January 2000 the Gdańsk District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment.
8.  On 18 October 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court upheld the applicant's conviction.
9.  On 9 May 2002 the applicant was again arrested on suspicion of fraud. On 10 May 2002 the Olsztyn District Court ordered his detention on remand. On 16 September 2002 the Olsztyn District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 3 years' imprisonment.
10.  Upon the applicant's appeal, the Olsztyn Regional Court amended the first‑instance judgment on 30 January 2003. The applicant filed a cassation appeal. On 1 March 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's cassation appeal as manifestly ill‑founded.
11.  At the time of lodging his application with the Court the applicant had been detained on remand in the course of criminal proceedings against him. At the same time, as of 21 May 1999 he was serving a prison sentence imposed in the course of another set of criminal proceedings against him.
12.  On 6 June 2000, the Registry of the Court received the applicant's letter dated 12 April 2000. Both the letter and the envelope bear a stamp “Censored on... judge” and no signature (Cenzurowano dn... sędzia.). The envelope had been opened and then sealed with adhesive tape.
13.  On 13 February 2001, the Registry of the Court received another letter from the applicant (dated 29 December 2000). It was delivered in an envelope bearing a stamp “Censored on ... judge” and no signature (Cenzurowano dn... sędzia.). It also bears a red stamp “Remand Centre in Gdańsk” (Areszt Śledczy w Gdańsku).
14.  On 25 June 2001, the Registry of the Court received another letter from the applicant, dated 24 July 2000 (sent on 13 June 2001). It was delivered in an envelope bearing a stamp “Censored on... judge” and no signature (Cenzurowano dn... sędzia.). The envelope had been sealed with adhesive tape. It also bears a handwritten note: “letter admitted to transport sealed with adhesive tape” (list przyjęty do przewozu oklejony taśmą).
5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and he is currently detained in the Gaziantep Prison.
6.  On 13 March 1993 the applicant was taken into custody by policemen from the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Batman Security Directorate on suspicion of his membership of an illegal organisation, namely the Workers' Party of Kurdistan (“the PKK”).
7.  On 13 April 1993 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge where he repeated his police statements. The judge ordered the applicant's detention on remand.
8.  On 26 April 1993 the Diyarbakır State Security Court Public Prosecutor filed an indictment against 38 accused persons, including the applicant. He accused the applicant of carrying out activities aimed at breaking up the unity of the State and removing part of the national territory from the State's control. He requested the court to sentence the applicant in accordance with Article 125 of the Criminal Code.
9.  Two further indictments were submitted to the Diyarbakır State Security Court concerning offences which the applicant had allegedly committed in Bitlis and Tatvan. The Diyarbakır State Security Court decided to examine these accusations jointly.
10.  Between 16 June 1993 and 20 April 1999, the court held 51 hearings, during which the judges dealt with solely procedural matters. They considered the measures that should be taken to secure the presence of the accused persons at the hearings and examined their continued detention. The applicant did not attend many of these hearings in protest against the State Security Courts.
11.  On 18 June 1999 the constitution was amended and the military judge sitting on the bench of the Diyarbakır State Security Court was replaced by a civilian judge. Thereafter, the court held 18 more hearings.
12.  On 12 March 2002 the Diyarbakır State Security Court, which was composed of three civilian judges, found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to the death penalty under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. The death penalty was commuted to a life sentence.
13.  On 1 October 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Izmir.
5.   In 1996 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated land (plot no. 431/4) and a building which the applicant co‑owned. The applicant received an amount determined by a committee of experts at the time of the expropriation.
6.  On 5 January 1996 the applicant filed an action for additional compensation with the Izmir Civil Court of First Instance. On 27 December 1999 the first-instance court awarded the applicant additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court's decision. This judgment was quashed by the Court of Cassation on 17 April 2000.
7.  On 4 December 2000 the first-instance court awarded the applicant additional compensation of 3,275,732,664 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 5,470 euros (EUR)), plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court's decision, running from 12 January 1996. On 12 March 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld this judgment.
8.  On 29 August 2001 the administration paid the applicant TRL 12,352,710,000 (approximately EUR 10,042) covering the additional compensation, interest, costs and expenses.
5.  The applicant, Ms Pelaghia Moisei, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1921 and lives in the village of Recea.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  In 2000 the applicant lodged with the Străşeni District Court a civil action against the Savings Bank and the Government. She sought compensation in connection with her deposits in the Savings Bank pursuant to the Parliament's decision of 29 July 1994 to revalue the savings of citizens in the Savings Bank in order to compensate for losses caused by inflation.
8.  On 23 July 2001 the Straseni District Court found for the applicant and ordered the Government to pay her 7,696.23 Moldovan lei (MDL), (approximately 682 euros (EUR) at the time). No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final and enforceable 15 days later.
9.  The court issued an enforcement warrant which it sent directly to the Bailiff for enforcement.
10.  On 1 November 2001 the applicant's representative lodged a written request with the President of the Chişinău District Court asking for the enforcement of the judgment of 23 July 2001. By a letter of 15 November 2001 the President of that court replied that the enforcement of the decision was impossible because the Ministry of Finance did not have funds and advised the applicant to address the Government, the Parliament and the President of Moldova, because its own requests sent to these institutions remained unheeded.
11.  On 28 March 2002 the applicant addressed the Ministry of Justice with a request for its assistance in enforcing the judgment. The Ministry forwarded the letter to the newly created Department for the Enforcement of Judicial Decisions (“the Department”). In a letter dated 2 July 2002, the Department informed the applicant that the enforcement warrant in her name for the sum of MDL 7,696 had been forwarded to the Central Treasury of the Ministry of Finance and added that the legislation did not provide for the forced execution of judgments against the State Budget.
12.  On 19 September 2002 the applicant requested the assistance of the Minister of Finance in enforcing the decision. In a letter of 8 October 2002, signed by the Vice-Minister of Finance, the applicant was informed that the State Treasury, which was responsible for enforcing judgments against the State, had not received an enforcement warrant for the sum mentioned by the applicant. At the same time, it had registered another warrant for the amount of MDL 2,004. The applicant was further informed that the State Budget for the year 2002 did not provide for expenditure related to enforcement of her judgment and that therefore the judgment of 23 July 2001 could not be enforced. The applicant was advised to wait for the adoption of the State Budget for the year 2003 which might provide for such expenditure.
13.  The Government submitted evidence of the fact that the Ministry of Finance had transferred a lump sum to the Department on 29 April 2003 for the purpose of enforcing a list of enforcement warrants, including the applicant's. The applicant received her money on 27 May 2003.
4.  The applicants were born in 1955 and 1965 respectively. The first applicant lives in Batman and the second applicant is currently detained in the Gaziantep Prison.
5.  On 13 March 1993 the applicants were taken into custody by policemen from the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Batman Security Directorate on suspicion of their membership of an illegal organisation, namely the Workers' Party of Kurdistan (“the PKK”).
6.  On 13 April 1993 the applicants were brought before the public prosecutor and subsequently the investigating judge, who ordered the applicants' detention on remand.
7.  On 26 April 1993 the Diyarbakır State Security Court Public Prosecutor filed an indictment against 38 accused persons, including the applicants. He accused the first applicant of membership of the PKK and requested the court to sentence him under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The public prosecutor further accused the second applicant of carrying out activities aimed at breaking up the unity of the State and removing part of the national territory from the State's control. The prosecutor requested the court to sentence him in accordance with Article 125 of the Criminal Code.
8.  On 18 June 1999 the constitution was amended and the military judge sitting on the bench of the Diyarbakır State Security Court was replaced by a civilian judge.
9.  Between 16 June 1993 and 12 March 2002, the court held 69 hearings. On 12 March 2002 the Diyarbakır State Security Court, which was composed of three civilian judges, acquitted the first applicant of the charges against him. The court further found the second applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to the death penalty under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. The death penalty was commuted to a life sentence.
10.  On 1 October 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in the town of Nova Kakhovka, Kherson Region, Ukraine. He is a former employee of the State‑owned OJSC “Pivdenelektromash” (“the Company,” ВАТ “Південелектромаш”).
5.  The background facts for the case are described in the case of Semenov v. Ukraine (no. 25463/03, §§ 5-8, 13 December 2005).
6.  On 5 December 2002 the Nova Kakhovka City Court (Новокаховський міський суд Херсонської області) ordered the Company to pay the applicant UAH 4,393[1] in salary arrears. This judgment became final and the writs of execution were transferred to the Bailiffs' Service.
7.  By letters of 26 February 2003 and 15 April 2003, the Bailiffs' Service and the Kherson Regional Department of Justice informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings had been suspended due to the proceedings of financial rehabilitation of the debtor.
8.  On 11 August 2003 the Nova Kakhovka City Court rejected the applicant's complaint about the allegedly unlawful inactivity of the Bailiffs' Service. The court stated that there was no fault attributable to the defendant.
9.  On 15 January 2004 the Bailiffs' Service resumed the execution proceedings in the applicant's case. On 23 January and 10 February 2004, it ordered the seizure of the Company's accounts. However, on 27 February 2004 the Kherson Regional Commercial Court, on the trustee's appeal, quashed these decisions because the Bankruptcy Act envisaged the obligatory suspension of enforcement proceedings pending the resolution of a bankruptcy case.
10.  The judgment in the applicant's favour remains unenforced.
5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lived in Ryazan, the Russian Federation. He died on 1 August 2005. By letter of 14 January 2006, Mrs Movsesyan, the applicant's widow, informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application.
6.  On 26 November 2001 the Pavlograd Court (Павлоградський районний суд Дніпропетровської області) awarded the applicant a lump sum of UAH 9,114.31[1] in various payments and UAH 416.61[2] in monthly disability allowances against his former employers, the State-owned companies “Dniproshakhtobud” (ДВАТ “Дніпрошахтобуд”), “Kryvbasshakhtoprokhodka” (трест “Кривбасшахтопроходка”) and “Rudoupravlinnya Kirova” (ДП “Рудоуправління ім. Кірова”). The judgment came into force and the enforcement writs were transferred to the Bailiffs' Service for enforcement.
7.  On 12 and 23 April 2002 the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the judgment could not be enforced due to the considerable number of enforcement proceedings taken against the debtors and that the sale of the debtors' assets was blocked by the Law of 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property.” Later, liquidation procedure was initiated in respect of two of the three debtor-companies.
8.  In May 2004 – April 2005 the applicant received, in instalments, the total of UAH 5,275.02[3] of the lump sum award due to him. In September 2005 the remaining part of the award was transferred to the applicant. However, it was returned as unclaimed.
9.  In November 2002 the applicant received the monthly allowances in arrears due to him by the judgment of 26 November 2001 and since then was receiving them regularly. The June and July 2005 allowances were returned as unclaimed.